The ID advocates here are going to assail you for this one, because you mention Christianity. I mean, there are millions of non-Christian ID advocates... somewhere.

In any case, you're going to have to discuss this ID thing outside of Christianity if you don't want them to boot you. You can't start of bashing. You've got to be inquisitive. The people here believe in ID. Ask questions.

I think that if someone came onto this forum and gave you evidence that random mutations can produce an "irreducibly complex" system, you would still argue it. Therefore I disagree and say it would take more than that to convince ID proponents like you of this.

Also, why don't YOU tell us what irreducibly complex systems are, citing evidence and examples of this idea. You're gonna have to engage and argue a cause instead of just bashing other people's ideas that are not congruent with your own.

Also, what is the problem with natural selection being a driving force on irreducibly complex systems? I would think this could drive IC to occur more rapidly. We know that natural selection occurs in most sexually reproducing organisms, so why is it left out of the assumptions associated with irreducible complexity? And don't say there is no evidence for natural selection, because then I have to waste more time providing evidence to you that you won't read anyway.

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

His comments were in line with his previous statements on "intelligent design" — whose supporters hold that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.

In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.

"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."

The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by
Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."

I think that if someone came onto this forum and gave you evidence that random mutations can produce an "irreducibly complex" system, you would still argue it. Therefore I disagree and say it would take more than that to convince ID proponents like you of this.

The evidence would have to encompass all possible IC structures to do that.

I think that if someone came onto this forum and gave you evidence that random mutations can produce an "irreducibly complex" system, you would still argue it.

If such evidence existed...

Also, what is the problem with natural selection being a driving force on irreducibly complex systems? I would think this could drive IC to occur more rapidly.

Natural selection cannot be a mechanism in this arena. Assuming natural selection is a mechanism of any regard, saying it can help create irreducibly complex systems begs the questions-it cannot help produce an irreducibly complex system because the system only becomes selectable once it starts to function.

We know that natural selection occurs in most sexually reproducing organisms, so why is it left out of the assumptions associated with irreducible complexity? And don't say there is no evidence for natural selection, because then I have to waste more time providing evidence to you that you won't read anyway.

Natural selection only causes features in a population to oscillate, not to go off in one direction (the finches, for example).

Also, why don't YOU tell us what irreducibly complex systems are, citing evidence and examples of this idea. You're gonna have to engage and argue a cause instead of just bashing other people's ideas that are not congruent with your own.

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Darwin's Black Box, page 39.

"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous

What I am saying is: why couldn't natural selection be a driving force outside of a system becoming "IC"? This happens all the time... many genes in our genome are linked in some fashion, so a naturally selected trait may not be directly selected for. For instance, large antlers in deer are often selected for because of "honest advertising", meaning deer with large antlers also tend to be resistant to disease, parasites and carry "good" genes that will proliferate in subsequent generations. Females selected these males because, for instance, their sons will carry these genes and increase their overall reproductive fitness. However, the locus of these genes on a specific chromosome may be linked to a gene for skin pigmentation or a gene for a system within the body becoming "IC". Therefore, the irreducibly complex system is not being directly selected for, but since it is associated by location to genes that are being selected, the system could be driven towards complexity.

It is not true that naturally selected features only oscillate... although that is usually what we can observe. Before the industrial revolution, the wildtype of a specific moth species in western European countries (I think England) were white with black speckles on their wings and the mutant was black. When the industrial revolution hit, white moths were drastically selected against because birds could see them against trees and houses covered in soot; the black ones proliferated their genes into subsequent generations because they went relatively unseen by birds. This occurrence directly selected for black moths to survive.

What I am saying is: why couldn't natural selection be a driving force outside of a system becoming "IC"?

As I said, it begs the question. Natural selection can only select something that is presently working, not something that may in the future work.

However, the locus of these genes on a specific chromosome may be linked to a gene for skin pigmentation or a gene for a system within the body becoming "IC". Therefore, the irreducibly complex system is not being directly selected for, but since it is associated by location to genes that are being selected, the system could be driven towards complexity.

Then experiment. Science is not the modern way of telling folktales (hopefully).

It is not true that naturally selected features only oscillate... although that is usually what we can observe. Before the industrial revolution, the wildtype of a specific moth species in western European countries (I think England) were white with black speckles on their wings and the mutant was black. When the industrial revolution hit, white moths were drastically selected against because birds could see them against trees and houses covered in soot; the black ones proliferated their genes into subsequent generations because they went relatively unseen by birds. This occurrence directly selected for black moths to survive.

False. The moths did not rest on the trees naturally. Only when they were released at the wrong time of day did they ever rest on trunks of trees (why don't know) and they only found one moth naturally resting on the trunk. As with other recent stuff, Icons of Evolution talks about this. When lichen on the trees did come back, where was not a positive correlation with return of white moths and reduction of black moths.

It is not true that naturally selected features only oscillate... although that is usually what we can observe. Before the industrial revolution, the wildtype of a specific moth species in western European countries (I think England) were white with black speckles on their wings and the mutant was black. When the industrial revolution hit, white moths were drastically selected against because birds could see them against trees and houses covered in soot; the black ones proliferated their genes into subsequent generations because they went relatively unseen by birds. This occurrence directly selected for black moths to survive.

False. The moths did not rest on the trees naturally. Only when they were released at the wrong time of day did they ever rest on trunks of trees (why don't know) and they only found one moth naturally resting on the trunk.

Where are you getting this stuff? The truth is the frequency of black moths to spotted moths did change as the polution levels went up and then reduced again. However Moths only rest on the trunk of trees during the day about 25% of the time and the ones found in the pictures are actually glued to the tree. This doesn't mean it was faked, but sadly the experimenter was misguided. This study is inconclusive because corelation is not enough evidence to show relation. We do not know why the levels of the darker form of the moth increased. It may not be due to predation at all.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:As with other recent stuff, Icons of Evolution talks about this. When lichen on the trees did come back, where was not a positive correlation with return of white moths and reduction of black moths.

Wow, what you atheists go to, to make your "theory" true. Cougar brought up Bible Codes, yes, they are fake used by evidence, same with evolution, you look hard enough to fit what you want and you will get it.

It is not true that naturally selected features only oscillate... although that is usually what we can observe. Before the industrial revolution, the wildtype of a specific moth species in western European countries (I think England) were white with black speckles on their wings and the mutant was black. When the industrial revolution hit, white moths were drastically selected against because birds could see them against trees and houses covered in soot; the black ones proliferated their genes into subsequent generations because they went relatively unseen by birds. This occurrence directly selected for black moths to survive.

False. The moths did not rest on the trees naturally. Only when they were released at the wrong time of day did they ever rest on trunks of trees (why don't know) and they only found one moth naturally resting on the trunk.

Where are you getting this stuff? The truth is the frequency of black moths to spotted moths did change as the polution levels went up and then reduced again. However Moths only rest on the trunk of trees during the day about 25% of the time and the ones found in the pictures are actually glued to the tree. This doesn't mean it was faked, but sadly the experimenter was misguided. This study is inconclusive because corelation is not enough evidence to show relation. We do not know why the levels of the darker form of the moth increased. It may not be due to predation at all.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:As with other recent stuff, Icons of Evolution talks about this. When lichen on the trees did come back, where was not a positive correlation with return of white moths and reduction of black moths.

Hmm, focusing on lichens? Why?

My source is Icons of Evolution, once again.

And I focus on lichens, because that's part of the story. Lichens died due to pollution, bark darker, so darker moths selected by birds nabbing only the poorly camoflauged moths. And, once again, wrong, there was not a positive correlation with less pollution and percentage of each variant of moth. In some areas, yes, but not in all areas.

AttentionKmartShoppers wrote:Natural selection only causes features in a population to oscillate, not to go off in one direction (the finches, for example).

False...basic sexual selection strategies are clear proof of this.

What you're describing is known as stablilizing selection...under this form of sexual selection, an intermediate phenotype is selected for because it confers some sort of benefit that leads to increased fitness. An example would be a situation where if you're too big you can't get all the food you need and if you're too small you fall victim to predation to often. These selective pressures would lead to favoring of the intermediate form in such a population. There is also a form known as directional selection, where selection favors more and more extreme forms of a phenotype. An example would be a population where long tails are a favorable trait, so the proportion of individuals with long tails increases over time within the limits of the available amount of variation....this is selection moving in a single direction, not oscillating. If you look up anything on "directional selection" you can get more examples and specific articles if you wish, but this is pretty basic biology.